SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 178485. September 4, 2009.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO

SAPIGAO, JR., accused-appellant.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J : p

For automatic review is the Decision 1 dated July 19, 2006 of the Court
of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 01018, affirming with modification the Decision
2 dated July 28, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City,

Branch 46, in Criminal Case No. U-5035, finding appellant Mariano Sapigao,
Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
The facts of the case, culled from the records, are as follows:
In an Information 3 dated January 4, 1989, appellant Mariano Sapigao,
Jr. and Melvin Sublingo, who remains at large, were accused of the crime of
murder with the use of unlicensed firearms, as follows:

That on or about the 22nd day of September 1987, in the

afternoon, at Barangay Carosucan Sur, municipality of Asingan,
province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then armed with
Cal. .45 and Cal. .38 Handguns, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping each other, with deliberate intent to kill, and with treachery
and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, attack, assault and shoot one Alexander Turalba, inflicting
upon him, the following injuries: Gunshot wound — 3/4 cm. pt. of
entrance passing between the 8th and 9th thorasaic vertebrae,
lacerating the right ventricle of the heart [bullet lodged between the
6th left and right ribs, at the sternum]; Gunshot wound — 3/4 pt. of
entrance, left parietal bone, traversing the brain with 1 inch ill-defined
edges pt. of exit, fracturing the right maxillary bone, which caused the
death of said Alexander Turalba, as a consequence, to the damage and
prejudice of his heirs.

CONTRARY to Art. 248, Revised Penal Code. HEacAS

A Warrant of Arrest 4 was issued against appellant and Sublingo on

October 12, 1987, but the two allegedly eluded arrest. An Alias Warrant of
Arrest 5 was issued on December 1, 1987. Another Warrant of Arrest 6 was
issued on January 18, 1989 by the RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 46.
Appellant was arrested on February 8, 1993. 7 His lawyer filed a
petition for bail 8 which was opposed by the government prosecutor. 9 The
RTC, acting on the opposition of the government prosecutor, increased the
 bail bond from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. 10 Thereafter, the government
prosecutor, Atty. Monte P. Ignacio, filed a motion for consolidation 11 of the
case which had been docketed as Criminal Case No. U-5035 with another
criminal case docketed as Criminal Case No. U-4963 for illegal possession of
firearms against the appellant and Sublingo arising out of the same incident.
The motion was unacted upon and when called for arraignment, appellant
was absent and out on bail. 12 Warrants of arrest were again issued against
him and he was finally arrested on January 27, 1999. During his arraignment
on February 9, 1999, appellant pleaded not guilty. 13 Previously, the RTC, on
March 18, 1993, consolidated Criminal Case No. U-5035 with Criminal Case
No. U-4963 for illegal possession of firearms against the same accused. 14
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Dr. Leonardo Guerrero,
Cecilio Fabro, SPO4 Rodrigo Escaño, and Apolonia Turalba, the victim's
grandmother. For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of
eyewitness Jesus Ballesteros, the appellant himself, Ballistician and Chief of
the Firearms and Explosives Unit of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) Rogelio Munar, and NBI Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Arturo Llavore.

The autopsy of the victim was conducted by Dr. Irenio G. Agapito, Rural
Health Physician of Asingan, Pangasinan. The autopsy report states the
following findings on the victim:

EXTERNAL:

Fairly developed, fairly nourished, adult male, weighing around

130 lbs., height — 5['] 4"; Lon[g] black hair, brown complexion and
wearing maong long pants, green t-shirt, white brief[s] soaked with
blood.

INTERNAL:

GUNSHOT WOUNDS

1. 3/4 cm. Pt. of entrance passing between the 8th and 9th
thorasaic vertebrae lacerating the right ventricle of the heart and
the bullet was lodged between the 6th left and right ribs, at the
sternum.

BLOOD AT THORACIC CAVITY 500 c.c.

2. 3/4 pt. of entrance — left parietal bone traversing the brain with
1 inch ill-defined edges of pt[.] of exit fracturing the right
maxillary bone.

CAUSE OF DEATH: Fatal gunshot wounds. 15 IDCcEa

Prosecution witness Cecilio Fabro claimed that on September 22, 1987,

at about 3 p.m., he was with the victim Alexander Turalba at the basketball
court located at Carosucan Sur in front of the health center of the school,
forming a team to play basketball. While they were in the process of forming
the team, Melvin Sublingo arrived and immediately shot Alexander Turalba
once at the back with a .38 caliber firearm. Turalba fell, face down. Melvin
Sublingo fired once more, hitting Henry Osias. Then appellant Mariano
Sapigao, Jr., shot Alexander Turalba with a .45 caliber firearm while the latter
was lying down. After the shooting, Sublingo ran towards the eastern
direction while appellant ran towards the western direction. After Sublingo
and appellant left, Fabro lifted Turalba, placed the latter in a jeep and
brought him to the Urdaneta Sacred Heart Hospital where he was declared
dead on arrival. 16
For the defense, Jesus Ballesteros, a resident of Carosucan Sur,
Asingan, Pangasinan, testified that on September 22, 1987, at about 3 p.m.,
he was with the appellant, who was his cousin, and several other cousins
near a basketball court at Carosucan Sur. Suddenly, Melvin Sublingo
appeared. Sublingo at first tried to shoot Cecilio Fabro but a cousin of Fabro,
Orlan Fabro, shouted "You run, Manong, because Melvin is there already".
Cecilio ran towards the south. Alexander Turalba, who was at the midcourt,
was then shot by Melvin Sublingo with a .38 caliber firearm. Appellant was
beside Ballesteros at the time Sublingo shot Turalba twice hitting the back
and head of Turalba. Sublingo shot the head of Turalba first. When Turalba
fell down, he was shot again at the back by Sublingo. Sublingo then ran
towards the east where he met Osias. He also shot Osias. Ballesteros denied
that appellant shot Turalba. He attributed the shooting by Sublingo to
revenge because Turalba mauled Sublingo in the morning of September 22,
1987 and while Sublingo was being mauled by Alexander Turalba, Cecilio
Fabro had poked a knife at the head of Sublingo. 17
Appellant denied shooting Alexander Turalba. He claimed that it was
Melvin Sublingo who shot Turalba twice, the first shot hitting Turalba in the
head and the second hitting Turalba at the back. 18
NBI Ballistician Rogelio Munar testified that based on the gunshot
wounds of Turalba described in the autopsy report, the wound was produced
by a .32 or .38 caliber pistol. 19
Dr. Arturo Llavore testified that after examining the autopsy report, he
concluded that the gunshot wounds were inflicted by a .38 caliber firearm. 20
On July 28, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision finding appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder. It, however, dismissed the charges
against him for illegal possession of firearms, appreciating treachery as an
aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. The dispositive portion of
the RTC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT of CONVICTION beyond reasonable

doubt is rendered against MARIANO SAPIGAO, JR. of the crime of
aggravated Murder (appreciating treachery as qualifying circumstance)
with the use of firearms and the Court sentences Mariano Sapigao, Jr.
to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of
the victim the sum of P38,600.00 as actual damages; plus P50,000.00
as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. ATcEDS

Mariano Sapigao, Jr. is ACQUITTED in Crim. Case No. U-4963

(Illegal Possession of Firearm).
 The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to prepare the
mittimus.

The Jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology is

hereby ordered to deliver the person of Mariano Sapigao, Jr. to the
National Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City, [within] 15 days from receipt
of this Decision.

SO ORDERED. 21

Appellant appealed before this Court. Pursuant to the decision in People

v. Mateo, 22 the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for
intermediate review.
On July 19, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the
trial court's decision, as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the [D]ecision dated July

28, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 46, in
Criminal Case No. U-5035 is AFFIRMED with modification. Accused-
appellant MARIANO SAPIGAO, JR. is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ORDERED
to pay the heirs of the victim Alexander Turalba the following amounts:
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages;
P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages.

SO ORDERED. 23

Hence, this appeal where appellant raises the following issues in his
Supplemental Brief:

I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE

TRIAL COURT THAT APPELLANT SHOT THE VICTIM AND CAUSED HIS
DEATH.

II.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE

TRIAL COURT THAT APPELLANT ACTED IN CONSPIRACY WITH THE
OTHER ACCUSED MELVIN SUBLINGO.

III.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE GUILT OF

APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 24

The primordial issue is: Has appellant's guilt for the crime of murder
been proven beyond reasonable doubt? 2005jurcd

Appellant, in his Supplemental Brief, 25 argues the prosecution failed to

prove that he shot the victim because: (1) Prosecution witness Cecilio Fabro
testified that the handgun used by him in shooting the victim was a .45
caliber handgun, but the diameters at the point of entry of the two wounds
sustained by the victim were that of wounds caused by a .38 caliber firearm;
26 (2) Fabro testified that he shot the victim at the back while the Autopsy

Report stated that the wounds of the victim were in the thoracic area and
the left parietal area; 27 (3) The expert witnesses, Ballistician Munar and Dr.
Llavore, are impartial witnesses while Fabro had a motive to falsely testify
against him; 28 (4) The reliance by the Court of Appeals on the rule that the
trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses is not
applicable in this case; 29 (5) Ballistician Munar and Dr. Llavore are expert
and impartial witnesses and their testimonies are based on physical
evidence and scientific fact; 30 (6) The other accused, Melvin Sublingo,
caused both wounds of the victim; 31 (7) The path of the bullet wound that
caused the wound on the head of the victim belies the testimony of Fabro
that he shot the victim while the latter was lying face down on the ground; 32
(8) He had no motive to shoot the victim; 33 (9) For more than ten years, the
authorities did not arrest him; 34 (10) The burden of proof that he shot the
victim with a .45 caliber handgun rests with the prosecution and he does not
have the burden to prove that he did not shoot the victim. 35
The prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opted not
to file a supplemental brief, explaining that its arguments on the issues
invoked had already been discussed in the brief it had previously filed. 36
After review, we uphold the ruling of the Court of Appeals affirming the
guilty verdict of the trial court.
Findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of
witnesses, its assessment of their credibility and the probative weight of
their testimonies, as well as its conclusions anchored on the said findings,
are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect,
unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood, or misconstrued facts and
circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a reversal of
the outcome of the case. 37
In this case, the Court of Appeals and the RTC gave credence to the
testimony of prosecution witness Cecilio Fabro whose testimony directly
contradicts that of defense witness Jesus Ballesteros. We see no reason to
deviate from this finding.
It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and
their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its
unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their
demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These are
important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the
truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. 38 For, indeed, the
emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining
the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity and can take
advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the record so that
all that the appellate court can see are the cold words of the witness
contained in transcript of testimonies with the risk that some of what the
witness actually said may have been lost in the process of transcribing. As
correctly stated by an American court, "There is an inherent impossibility of
determining with any degree of accuracy what credit is justly due to a
witness from merely reading the words spoken by him, even if there were no
doubt as to the identity of the words. However artful a corrupt witness may
be, there is generally, under the pressure of a skillful cross-examination,
something in his manner or bearing on the stand that betrays him, and
thereby destroys the force of his testimony. Many of the real tests of truth by
which the artful witness is exposed in the very nature of things cannot be
transcribed upon the record, and hence they can never be considered by the
appellate court". 39 aEACcS

Cecilio Fabro testified:

Q Mr. Witness, at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of September

22, 1987, do you remember where you were?

A Yes, sir.

Q Where were you?

A We were at the basketball court, sir.

Q Where is that basketball court?

A In front of the Health Center of the school, sir.

Q Where is that school?

A Caros[u]can Sur sir.

Q Why were you there at that precise time and date in that
basketball court at Brgy. Caros[u]can Sur, Asingan, Pangasinan?

A Because we are going to play basketball sir.

Q Aside from you who are your companions or who are present in
that basketball court?

A Our [t]eammate and our barangaymate but Melvin Sublingo

arrived and [began shooting], sir.

Q Who are [those] present at the basketball court?

A Melvin Sublingo, Mariano Sapigao, Jr. and our teammate, sir.

Q How about Alexander T[u]ralba?

A He was there sir.

Q While you [were] forming that basketball team in the afternoon

of September 22, 1987, what happened Mr. Witness?

A Melvin Sublingo drew a gun and shot Alexander T[u]ralba sir.

Q How far were you then at that time when Melvin Sublingo [shot]
Alexander T[u]ralba?

A Three (3) meters sir.

Q [What] part of Alexander T[u]ralba's body was hit?

A [The] heart sir.

Q Do you know what firearm was used by Melvin Sublingo? aTcSID

A .38 Calibre sir.

Q What happened to Alexander T[u]ralba when he was hit with a

.38 Calibre?

A He died sir.

Q [After] Alexander T[u]ralba was hit, what happened to

Alexander T[u]ralba?

A He fell down on the ground, sir, facing down.

Q You mean when Alexander T[u]ralba fell down, his face [was]
facing down?

A Yes sir.

Q How about Melvin Sublingo, what did he do when Alexander

T[u]ralba was shot?

A He again fired his gun, sir.

Q Who fired that gun?

A Melvin Sublingo sir.

Q Was Alexander T[u]ralba hit?

A No more because the place where he fired the gun is the place
where he ran and Osias was hit, sir.

Q You said the first time that Melvin Sublingo shot Alexander
T[u]ralba, [the latter] fell down and was hit, what did Melvin
Sublingo do after that?

A Melvin Sublingo ran sir.

Q To what direction did Melvin Sublingo run?

A [Towards] the eastern direction sir.

Q When Melvin Sublingo ran and you saw Alexander

T[u]ralba [fall] down, what happened after that?

A I saw Mariano Sapigao, Jr. [shoot] Alexander T[u]ralba

while [the latter was] lying down facing the ground sir.
 Q You mean Mariano Sapigao, Jr. shot Alexander T[u]ralba while the
latter was lying down?

A Yes sir. HDTISa

Q [What part of Alexander Turalba's body] was hit when

Mariano Sapigao, Jr. shot him?

A Head sir.

Q How many times?

A Once only sir.

Q How far were you [from] the accused Mariano Sapigao, Jr. when
the latter fired towards Alexander T[u]ralba?

A Five (5) meters sir.

Q What kind of gun was used by Mariano Sapigao, Jr.?

A .45 Caliber sir.

Q How do you know that it was .45 caliber?

A Because I can identify guns sir. 40 (Emphasis supplied.)

The RTC correctly ascertained that moved by common design and unity
of purpose, Melvin Sublingo first shot Alexander Turalba at the back, and as
a result thereof, Turalba fell to the ground, face down. While Turalba was
lying face down, wounded, and in order to ensure that Turalba was dead, the
appellant fired at him once using a .45 caliber firearm and hit Turalba's head.
The autopsy report conformed with the testimony of Fabro. The RTC noted
that Fabro is credible since he narrated in details and without hesitation. It
was not inclined to take seriously the defense's assertion that Melvin
Sublingo alone, without the participation of the appellant, shot Turalba, after
finding that the testimony of Fabro is more credible than the testimonies of
Ballesteros and the appellant who are first cousins. We affirm this finding.
Ballesteros' testimony that Sublingo first shot the victim on the head and
then afterwards on the back appears illogical since the first shot on the head
already ensured the death of the victim. Fabro's testimony that the victim
was first shot on the back and then afterwards on the head to ensure his
demise, appears more accurate.
The Court of Appeals, after carefully and assiduously examining the
records of the case, supported the conclusion reached by the RTC. It ruled
that although the accused sought to denigrate the testimony of Fabro by
alleging that they were previous rivals over the love of the same woman, the
defense failed to present compelling evidence to support the imputation of ill
motive. It further ruled that although the defense capitalized on the
testimony of Dr. Leonardo Guerrero, who testified on the possibility that only
one kind of firearm was used since the wounds are of similar diameter, and
the testimonies of NBI Ballistics Expert Rogelio G. Munar and NBI Medico-
Legal Officer Dr. Arturo G. Llavore to prove that the diameter of the gunshot
wounds sustained by the victim, which is 3/4 or .75 centimeter, could not
have been produced by a .45 caliber pistol, the appellate court held that the
gun allegedly seen as held and used by the appellant was never presented
as evidence and no expert witness was able to physically examine the same.
Hence, there was no way of knowing the size of the wound it would have
produced. The appellate court also found that even the testimonies of the
expert witnesses of the defense were inconclusive. The NBI ballistics expert,
Munar, although admitting that he is not well versed on sizes of wounds,
testified that the difference in size of gunshot wounds produced by .38 and
.45 caliber guns is negligible. Dr. Llavore, the NBI medico-legal expert,
testified that the entrance of the wound caused by a caliber .45 handgun is
similar to that of a wound caused by a .38 caliber handgun, except in the
cross-diameter thereof where the wound is smaller in case of a .38 caliber
gun and larger in case of a .45 caliber. SETaHC

To put to rest the question of whether the .45 caliber handgun

allegedly used by the appellant in shooting the victim on the head could
produce an entrance wound with a 3/4 or .75 centimeter diameter, we have
held that the diameter of the entrance of gunshot wounds could be smaller
or larger, depending on certain factors. The factors which could make the
wound of entrance bigger than the caliber include: (1) shooting in contact or
near fire; (2) deformity of the bullet which entered; (3) a bullet which might
have entered the skin sidewise; and (4) an acute angular approach of the
bullet. Where the wound of entrance is smaller than the firearm's caliber, the
same may be attributed to the fragmentation of the bullet before entering
the skin or to a contraction of the elastic tissues of the skin. 41 Thus, it is not
impossible for a .45 caliber handgun to produce an entrance wound smaller
than expected. The appellant's defense of denial therefore crumbles. In the
face of the positive testimony of prosecution witness Fabro, as corroborated
by the autopsy report, there is no doubt that appellant is guilty of the crime
charged. Truly, what stands out from the evidence on record is the fact that
to ensure the death of the victim, the appellant shot him on the head while
the victim was already lying down.
In view of the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the prosecution
has established by proof beyond reasonable doubt the criminal culpability of
the appellant.
As for the penalty and civil liability, the Court of Appeals correctly held:

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the essential

elements of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed
him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor
infanticide. All the elements of murder, as alleged in the Information,
have been sufficiently established by the prosecution in the present
case.

The offense in the present case was committed on September

22, 1987, prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death
 Penalty Law) on December 13, 1993. The applicable penalty for murder
prior to the enactment of R.A. 7659 is reclusion temporal maximum to
death. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the
penalty imposable on accused-appellant in accordance with Art. 64(1)
of the Revised Penal Code should be the medium period, which is,
reclusion perpetua. The penalty of reclusion perpetua being indivisible,
the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply.

Civil Liability

The trial court awarded the heirs of the victim Alexander Turalba
the sum of P38,600.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. TCIDSa

We delete the award of actual damages. To seek recovery of

actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with
reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on
the best evidence obtainable. Since the prosecution did not present
receipts to prove the actual losses suffered, such actual damages
cannot be awarded.

However, while no actual damages may be awarded because no

competent evidence in the form of receipts was presented, temperate
damages may be recovered under Article 2224 of the Civil Code as the
Court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount
cannot be proved with certainty. Consistent with current jurisprudence,
the amount of P25,000.00 is awarded to the victim's heirs as temperate
damages considering that it is not disputed that the family incurred
expenses for the wake and burial of the victim.

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, We award P50,000.00

by way of indemnity ex delicto to the heirs of Alexander Turalba. When
death occurs as a result of the crime, the heirs of the deceased are
entitled to such amount as civil indemnity for death without need of
any evidence or proof of damages.

The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is sustained, being

consistent with recent cases. Moral damages are awarded without
further proof other than the death of the victim.

The victim's heirs are likewise entitled to exemplary damages in

the amount of P25,000.00, given the presence of treachery which
qualified the killing to murder. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code
which allows the award of exemplary damages as part of the civil
liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances, the term aggravating circumstance as used therein
should be construed in its generic sense since it did not specify
otherwise. 42

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated July 19, 2006 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01018 affirming with modification the judgment of
conviction of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 46 is
AFFIRMED. Appellant Mariano Sapigao, Jr. is hereby found GUILTY of the
crime of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided for by law. He is
further ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim Alexander Turalba P50,000
as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P25,000 as temperate
damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio Morales, Brion, Del Castillo and Abad, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 3-18. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, with

Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Sesinando E. Villon concurring.

2. Records, pp. 171-179. Penned by Judge Modesto C. Juanson.

3. Id. at 1.

4. Id. at 24.

5. Id. at 27.

6. Id. at 40.

7. Id. at 41.

8. Id. at 45.

9. Id. at 47.

10. Id. at 48.

11. Id. at 49.

12. Id. at 57.

13. Id. at 78.

14. Id. at 50.

15. Id. at 11.

16. TSN, February 22, 1999, pp. 4-8.

17. TSN, March 16, 1999, pp. 2-15.

18. TSN, April 5, 1999, p. 6.

19. TSN, June 16, 1999, p. 7.

20. TSN, July 6, 1999, pp. 5-6.

21. Records, p. 179.

22. G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.

23. Rollo, p. 17.

24. Id. at 55-56.

25. Id. at 52-92.

26. Id. at 57.

27. Id. at 66.

28. Id. at 67.

29. Id. at 68.

30. Id. at 69.

31. Id. at 72.

32. Id. at 74.

33. Id. at 75.

34. Id. at 76.

35. Id. at 78.

36. Id. at 196-197.

37. People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 138931-32, July 17, 2003, 406 SCRA 439,
446-447.

38. Maandal v. People, G.R. No. 144113, June 28, 2001, 360 SCRA 209, 222.

39. Id. at 223.

40. TSN, February 22, 1999, pp. 4-7.

41. People v. Abriol, G.R. No. 123137, October 17, 2001, 367 SCRA 327, 343-
344.

42. Rollo, pp. 15-17.